|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 2014 was hotter than 1998. 2015 data in yet? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
[ Please, no replies to this message in this thread. If you'd like to participate in the discussion at the Did Jesus teach reincarnation? thread then please post over there. --Admin ]
I showed evidence that Jesus said John the Baptist was Elijah. You guys can't show evidence that Paul taught a spermless incarnation of God in Mary's womb. (and I'm not against the idea, infact it would support my argument) (I am against saying Paul taught that Mary was impregnated by God in a spermless incarnation BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE HE DID!) I favor saying Jesus taught reincarnation because he plainly taught it
quote: I back up my views, infact my views are based on evidence. The evidence comes first for me. Without the evidence, I wouldn't even have the view. Evidence comes first for me. You simply are not like me. Edited by Admin, : Add moderator request to post at the correct thread. Edited by Admin, : Add brackets around moderator request.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
[ Please, no replies to this message in this thread. If you'd like to participate in the discussion at the Did Jesus teach reincarnation? thread then please post over there. --Admin ]
The Oxford Dictionary is very conservative. It forcefully argues Mark was written in the 60s AD. I quoted an evangelical conservative commentary that said that Jesus did not "necessarily" mean that John was a reincarnation of Elijah even though the plain text said so. The Gospel of Matthew and Mark (and frankly Luke) say Jesus taught reincarnation. See my quote of Jesus right at the top of the OP in my link. The text backs me up clown.EvC Forum: Did Jesus teach reincarnation? Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Add moderator request to post in the proper thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
quote: I will start with the least important issue: the space required. First, solar uses 10 times the space as a coal plant, but coal takes more net space when mining is factored in. Your Maryland numbers indicate that 26x26 miles will be needed. Maryland is one of the most densely populated states, but has an average population of about 6 million people. 100x100 miles in the state of Nevada would cover the energy needs of the entire nation. (also you keep saying that I said "on top of roofs". Go back and check my initial post. It isn't there. I was talking about utility plants and it was a rough estimate. Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, Delaware, Wyoming have about 1/6 -1/7 the population of MD and would require much less energy. Perhaps Delaware would only need about 11x11 miles of panels?) Now, the more important issue. Topaz cost $2.5 billion for its 9 million panels and land (plus other costs). Using your numbers (73 times the costs to have enough energy for Maryland), then only $182 billion in new expenditures would cover all the energy needs of Maryland IF WE RELIED ENTIRELY ON THE NEWLY BUILT PLANTS FOR ENERGY. Wow! That means that about $9.1 trillion worth of panels, at todays prices, could fuel the entire nation (what all panels and utility plants produce today). Or a $6 trillion upfront cost to replace just the coal, natural gas, and petroleum plants. (they are about 66% of energy from our power plants and grid sources) A $6 trillion initial investment for "free energy" after is lower than I thought.(I'm not suggesting the cost should be "free" because that would encourage people to waste energy like crazy - windows would be left open during winter with the thermostat turned up to 85 degrees, and we would see blackouts and/or the need to build many times more plants just to keep up with the waste) With no more natural gas needed for power plants, we could devote our scarce (IMO) natural gas fields towards "filling stations" for newer natural gas (engine) based cars. (oil based car)Gas was around $3.80 per gallon for the past decade, now it is around $1.80. That a $250 billion per year savings for consumers. With solar freeing up natural gas (if only!), we might be able to lock in prices around $2.50 per gallon if we build lots of natural gas based cars and the filling stations to go along with them. It would save consumers trillions of $$$ over 20 years. Then Jon had a "But wait, there's more!" part. It was so selective (not to mention misleading, ignorant, etc.) in its data that Jon's analysis was essentially worthless. I'll skip that part. I'll have my own "But wait, there's more" moment though. Wind is a more economical investment than solar in many areas. I'm sure that we can get the bill for a complete (renewable-based)grid overhaul (of gas, coal, oil, etc.) to be less than $5 trillion (one-time cost) for an up-front investment that pays economic dividends for decades to come. The problem with wind is that it produces energy mostly at night, unlike solar, which produces energy when it is most needed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
I don't think natural gas will be able to be only $2.50 per gallon for long. The more it is used, the more the demand, which means we will need to drill for more expensive natural gas fields. And the higher prices to go along with it all.
Solar based energy will be a cost saving gold mine for drivers once engines become all electric. The potential for batteries to fall in price (not to mention charge faster and hold a higher capacity) is dramatic. Solar is the future, but there is some logic in one (and ONLY ONE short-term) generation of cars using natural gas engines IF (and only if) we devote all natural gas resources to the purpose. Once can argue that the building of natural gas filling stations will be a colossal waste of money, and I half agree. But they might be economical if ALL NATURAL GAS is devoted to car engines and we replace the natural-gas-fired power plants with (soon to be) cheaper solar. An idea. But solar is the future, as Jon (by mistake) showed us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined:
|
quote: The Department of Energy says wind and solar were more than 66% of all new generating-capacity in 2015. Wind will be 20% of all generating capacity in 2030 according to the DOE. I think it is about 5% now. Cheaper than natural gas and coal N-O-W. Right here. Right now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined:
|
The conservative Forbes had this article recently.
quote: There is more amazing news.
quote: Below is an article saying solar prices will fall 40% in 2 years. http://cleantechnica.com/...-will-fall-40-next-2-years-heres Have these experts missed Jon's claims of (super rare)rare-earth metals being the only efficient means to deploy solar? I wonder if Jon will claim that Mexico doesn't have enough land (cheap or otherwise) to build panels at this cost? Most people live in the areas of the planet where. solar is a great deal (though it must be admitted that water tends to be scarce in clear sky areas). Same is true of the USA. Wind works well in many areas where solar isn't such a good deal. My solution? Make Mexico part of the USA, then fund a "Solar Martial Plan" for (the former nation of) Mexico. Texas (and like 1/3 of the continental USA) was part of Mexico for longer than the USA existed anyway. Nevermind 1846, go back to 1776 and it is still true. Watch Mexican's income go from $12,000 - $13-000 per year (2015) up to $30,000 to $40,000 in a few years, and watch the USA hit record levels too. Lets have some real growth please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
quote: Don't expect much right-wing noise machinery in the vast media world to sound off this developing and developing story. The echo chamber of talk radio stations won't have the journalistic integrity to even fire off an initial mention much less the echoes Where are the Democrats? Where is there plan for a mass deployment? The right wing is openly advocating spending several hundreds of billions of $$$ more on their own favored programs. Here is an amazing example from the same WSJ issue.
quote: This is the Opinion piece by the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Ronald Reagan, currently a Harvard professor, and a Wall Street Journal board of contributors. It seems that the call is for additional spending to the tune of at least 2.6% of our $20 trillion debt economy ( 20 tril is by coincidence the size of the economy too ), or $520 billion a year , among right wing planners. Democrats make it seem like such a big deal to defend $20 billion a year in spending costs to continue the 30% solar panel tax subsidy. The debate always centers around when it should end and the discussion is pretty much a disagreement over RIGHT NOW or a few more years till we relieve the hard working tax payers of this fiscally expensive expenditure. The Republicans are all too happy to present themselves as defenders of responsibility in budgeting when the Solar Panel subsidy is the subject. The right wing echo chamber always will give a lecture about the terrible expense of the program. Democrats make no proposals for even a 1% of GDP solar deployment program so corrupt corporate forces enjoy the goalposts being placed so far away from a genuine debate due to no genuine opposition (opposition party for one thing ) to far right wing designs that are ever active at the policy level. No real counter proposals with $200 billion economic growth programs even though solar panels are very timely in more ways than 20. The fact that solar panels are 30% cheaper than when I started this thread means very little to Washington DC because the American people have no idea what kind of fools represent them. The 2 political parties are enough to make you feel sick. There is $1.82 trillion in mortgage backed securities that Quantitative Easing needs to unload (4.26 trillion bucks total with treasury bonds included) and the results will be higher mortgages for sure. Trump talked down the dollar (saying he wants it weaker and the markets took note ) so God only knows how much higher mortgages interest rates will be thanks to his idiotic admission. How much higher will our debt go with the economic drag from higher mortgage interest rates? How much higher will our treasury bonds cost us with higher interest rates to pay debt purchasers? Where are the opposition party Democrats? Where is their own genuine opposition proposals? Solar technology ready WHENEVER!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
I started this thread On January 2, 2016.
From January 1 2016 to January 1 2017, a $20,000 solar panel array fell from $20,000 to $14,000 installed (?). American installation jobs have the best chance ever to boom. Frankly, the dynamic budget scoring would bring perhaps 25% of a $200 billion yearly spending program back to federal coffers. A federal program that gave the nation free solar panels could further cover costs by requesting a small monthly fee (based on splitting the monthly energy bill savings the homeowner benefits from ) for, say, the first 10 years. That could ensure that the $200 billion yearly spending program gets perhaps another 50% back. The macroeconomic benefits are very good for Americans in so many other ways. The sweatshop arguments against free trade have fallen prey to the overwhelming evidence. The income of China was about $7,500 in 2014 while the world's was around $11,500. China is growing fast enough (over $700 billion a year ) that there will be parity by 2020 (both around $12,500 per person in U. S. Dollars). Italy, for example, will be around $35,000 and we will be, absent a collapse, $66,000) The trend isn't sweatshops. Not here or in China. The Chinese are aging and elderly care demands will reduce unemployment down to like 0% in a decade in China.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
The Model 3 is a $35,000 electric car and that is what the company hopes will finally bring in enough consumer cash to enable profits for the first time ever.
From Reuters
quote: This is an electric car that only costs a little more than $10,000 above the average combustion engine car, and around $15,000 more than a comparable gas guzzler of the same class. Not bad for a car that is priced to make some big profits (if the company was already established enough and had higher market shares among consumers, then the higher sales volume could enable the price to be perhaps a few thousand dollars lower ). Electric powered cars (unlike bigger automobiles ) are far more effective than gas guzzlers in energy efficiency and save around $2000 a year in energy costs. They have great potential for reducing demand for fossil fuels, which could lock in $50 a barrel oil, and the permanent lower gallon gas prices would be a major economic growth driver. The lower per gallon price at the tank would make a significant gas tax increase justifiable (assuming the Democrats care enough to understand the concept of reduced demand lowering prices and then make a sincere effort to educate the public ), which could fund infrastructure projects that benefit the country enormously (and are desperately needed for all sorts of reasons ). We can hope that the battery technology gets cheaper still so that the electric cars don't cost so much more to start with. Americans don't want to wait for over a half of a decade to save enough on fuel that the initial higher car price evens out ( with savings ultimately taking slightly longer ). But the car batteries Tesla helped to establish as (almost or already? ) affordable already have been proven to be a major blessing to us all due to the (much cheaper ) PowerWall home battery that was a spinoff product made possible by the major price drops in car battery technology. Tesla has jumped into the solar panel business as well and perhaps a way can be found to get home construction companies to build panels into new homes during construction ( with PowerWalls ) which would save a ton on installation costs. The more panels sold and installed, the cheaper the technology gets. That seems to be the rule. The prices for solar plants are competitive with fossil fuel plants already (though they can't fully replace them all until solar energy can be stored for use when the sun isn't shining ), so the fundamental march forward is progressing ever onward. Meanwhile There was a major poll that actually saw most Americans tell the pollsters that they could tolerate 1% higher energy prices to help move newer technology forward. The same Americans opposed higher price increases by a wide margin, but the fact that any price increases were supported by the majority of the American people was groundbreaking. The poll came out around spring or summer (possibly fall? ) of 2016. It still isn't compatible with the environmentalists push for ever higher fossil fuel prices (a grand strategy that has been a predictable political failure ) but it is compatible with Net Metering solar panel policies. The problem is that pro solar politicians have been doing not so good at the ballot boxes ( due to being tied up and embedded with an increasingly out of touch Democratic party ) , so wise, pragmatic, progressive policy is essentially in the Republican's hand. In other words, hope that the raw market forces, bringing ever lower prices (and much lower eventually ), bring mass deployment of solar energy SOONER rather than later. The much lower bottom line prices could have happened much sooner with wise government intervention, but that would mean that the Democratic party would have had a makeover, which has yet to even begin to happen, already under way years ago. (the big Democratic makeover seems to be not only based on going bat shit anti gun crazy, but further isolating itself , when its new party chair, Tom Perez, said that Pro Life Democrats need to leave the party. I think we are all as stunned as Bernie Sanders, considering that all 3 highly vulnerable Pro Life Democratic senators are up for re-election in 2018, when he objects to the intolerant declaration from on high, on the grounds that Democratic success depends on being a 50 state party, as opposed to a party that limits itself to a 24 to 30 state battlefield ) Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
I expressed concern about a new administration coming in and changing ( eliminating was my actual concern from one of my earliest posts from back in January 2016) the efficiency standards that have worked economic and environmental miracles .
Here is a glimmer of hope from the New York Times editorial. Monday,, May 8, 2017
quote: I'm not a big fan of the political judgment of the NYT , as they seem to have bad political judgment, and I wonder if the fuel efficiency standards are truly safe or just temporarily safe. The bottom line is that the Times might simply not care enough about this vitally important issue enough (compared to the editorial pages' chronic gun obsession ) to be truly sensitive to its ultimate four year survival chances. Four years are the important benchmark because that means that a future election can decide the issue before damage is done. And what damage an ending of the efficiency standards would be! We have essentially gotten past the most painful period in the incandescent to LED lightbulb transition, with upfront costs for LEDs falling dramatically in the last 5 years. The problem is that bringing back unregulated market rules would result in consumers choosing to save a tiny bit upfront only to suffer from higher energy bills in a month. Gone will be the $100 billion a year savings in lower energy bills Americans will enjoy by around 2020 (already almost there) And 2% higher energy consumption will require lots of new power plants added to the grid and macroeconomic analysis will suggest higher per watt rates in addition to the $100 billion per year from static microeconomic analysis of higher watt usage (not taking into account the higher per watt rates but assuming the price per watt stays the same ). Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
Though you will rarely find me saying something good about this race-to-the-bottom 50 state nightmare ( which education funding is the most obvious among the endless economically ruining casualties ), it seems that this 50 states of differing standards might save us here.
California and New York are 2 states that alone have over 18% of the population and they have said that any cars sold in our states must meet the (obsolete? ) Obama era efficiency standards. They will be joined by many more states. It will force the technology to be developed on schedule. Even if the sales of efficient vehicles go down nationwide, nevertheless the technology will advance onward toward the future and on the 2025 time benchmark. 2025 will be after 2 more Presidential elections too, so we have to make it clear that there will be a fundamental reality that the various industries must take into account - efficiency standards that won't be blown off by a 46.1% minority vote President. The fart in the tub we call President Donald J Trump is a temporary bad weather phenomenon NOT a changer of the fundamental climate among the thoughtful and technocratic policymakers who know that the efficiency standards are a must if we want an economically prosperous future .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined:
|
See May 7,2017 New York Post article Losing Power by Salena Zito.
quote: Navajo leader Russell Begaye is fighting hard to save the Navajo Generating Station coal plant in Arizona, which is about to be shut down. The Democrats in Washington DC imposed regulations that mean it won't be able to deliver power at an affordable price. Totally absent any associated funding for wind and solar projects. Out with 3200 direct and indirect jobs on a reservation with a 47% unemployment rate. The Navajo leader, on behalf of his people, said :
quote: Man o boy, this is sad. We have a trillion dollars to spend on the military each and every year, but can't find the money for solar power plants in sunny Arizona? No wonder the coal issue helped Trump cross the finish line on election day. The Democrats lost because they deserved to loose. This Russian conspiracy crap is further evidence as if we don't have enough evidence that the Democratic party isn't a true opposition party already. More pro military spending propaganda at a time when already hurting American communities are falling apart . There are a million reasons why Trump won and the 200,000 members of the Navajo reservation are that many reasons right there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
The Saturday June 3, 2017 New York Times doesn't use the term "base load" but it sure does sound like it is an accurate interpretation of the text in the article, Until Recently a Coal Goliath, Energy-Hungry India Is Rapidly Turning Green
Here is the shocking snip, on A10, which is where the front page A1 story led to.
quote: I think the environmental community needs a New Deal offer to negotiate with political decision makers. It can go something like this : "Once the alternative energy sources - specifically wind and solar - become both total BASE LOAD CAPABLE and cheaper "new power" sources than gas & coal, then we shall agree to build the installations and then shut down the conventionally powered plants ". The shutting down of existing plants before the normal decommissioning (retirement date when the older plants expire ) means that the newer built (solar for example ) plants will be "more expensive" energy ( since being the cheapest "new energy" source IF NOTHING IS PRESENT TO START WITH isn't the same thing as shutting down something already up and running ), but the fact that the renewable energy is base load would be so utterly game changing that the argument, for the government financing - as part of a "free stuff" social program - the building of the new utility UPFRONT (which would, first, create construction jobs, then enable cheaper energy thereafter without further subsidies or supplemented power from conventional sources ) , would make fairy decent economic sense. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined:
|
quote: Read on and see that Trump will weigh the evidence before deciding to impose crippling and job ruining tariffs. Utility scale solar (which rooftop solar panels are not included) produced about 21.75 giga watts of electricity in 2016. That came to about 2% of all utility scale power. Wind was over 6% of all utility scale power. That means that the 8% in 2016 and perhaps 9% in 2017(?) will be about 1/7 the total output of the fossil fuel percentage. The ratio was about 13:1 in 2014 so the perhaps 7:1 ratio for 2017 is impressive progress. Free trade creates American jobs and this whole solar panel issue proves it. Or put another way: Low cost Chinese imports do not hurt American jobs. Or another way: Free trade with China helps create more American jobs than we would have otherwise. WHY? HOW? Because lower cost products help the retail and installation industry massively. Because the thousands of saved consumer dollars can then be spent on something else (American consumers get the same solar product but have tons of $$$ left over to make many other big purchases) and yet more jobs are created still. And what about the benefit of having lots of energy from the sun captured for use (as opposed to simply being wasted which happens when there aren't ever more solar panels to catch the rays)? Free Trade is major driver of worldwide growth and we need to show Trump that we know it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024